Times-Staples Arrangement
* The separation of powers employed in your “Crossing the Line” special section is exemplary and long overdue (Dec. 20). The Times necessarily shifts from a “watchdog” status to a propagandistic arm of business when profit-minded executives are allowed to control its content. There should be a similar separation of the business entity and news content, to include not letting the brass read the articles before publication in all pieces about advertisers, parent or subsidiary companies and companies or entities (like the Staples Center) in which The Times advertises.
To be sure, this is almost a negligible amount of the news reported, but this separation is vital to maintain the trust of its true customers, not the advertisers, but the readers.
JAMES H. GUTZMAN
Northridge
* The most amazing thing I find in the whole affair is that the staff of The Times thinks we are shocked, or even surprised, to find that there is journalistic impurity present. The fact that monetary or political influence is present on a daily basis is readily apparent with each issue.
What a surprise to find that the Democratic Party expects special consideration from The Times. What a surprise that advertisers expect protection from the truth. Contrary to the popular media conception that we are all mental midgets, we take what we need from your paper and then line the cat box with it. The days of believing what we read and hear through the various media are as long gone as the concept of journalistic integrity.
TOM G. MOORE
Covina
* Having just read “Crossing the Line,” we have only one question, Why are Mark Willes and Kathryn Downing still at The Times?
BETSY and PAUL CHEVES
Pasadena
* The mark of a great newspaper is its willingness to dissect its own actions in the glare of public scrutiny. Your special section devoted to the Staples controversy did that and more. By revealing, in detail, the many missteps that compounded themselves into the crisis of conscience that so rightfully upset the editorial staff, The Times regained its honor.
JAC HOLZMAN
Santa Monica
* I have two questions regarding the Dec. 19 front-page mea culpa by Downing and Editor Michael Parks:
1. Would we have ever seen this piece if the financial ties between The Times and Staples Center had not been revealed by independent sources?
2. Does your “pledge to seek and report the truth with honesty, accuracy, fairness and courage” and the promise that your “newsroom will operate free of influence from public and private institutions, political officials and advertisers” extend to the blatant political bias shown by Times reporters and editors?
TERRENCE BEASOR
Santa Monica
* I read with interest your statement, “Principles of the Los Angeles Times.” Your second paragraph states, “Our duty is to the truth.” Wrong! I would suggest your duty is to the facts.
Truth is a subjective concept. Your truth may be vastly different from my truth. Your beliefs may not jibe with my concepts. And frankly, I’m not interested in your beliefs or concepts of what is right or wrong (except on your clearly marked editorial-opinion pages). What I am interested in is a factual recitation of what’s happening in our world--that’s why I read The Times.
JOE SCHOLNICK
Long Beach
* When it was announced a number of months ago that “the wall” was being torn down between the business side and the editorial side of The Times, I knew trouble was brewing at the paper and particularly since nonjournalists were now in charge. The quality of the paper has been in decline for some time.
Unfortunately, the Times Mirror board of directors has evidently set policies that put earnings before the integrity of The Times. It used to be a pretty good newspaper when Otis Chandler was running it. I’m certain that the Staples matter is just the tip of the iceberg. When nonjournalists run a newspaper and are totally dedicated to earnings and their bonuses, the paper is bound to suffer.
GORDON PATTISON
Irvine